Should admins tell ahelpers whether the offending player was noted/banned?

[sinfulbliss]

Someone is griefed, murdered FNR, or otherwise has their round ruined or disturbed greatly by a nonantag. They ahelp, the admin says it will be looked into, and perhaps after a little back and forth, the admin says "it was handled" - or maybe they don't say anything at all!

The ahelper now has no idea what happened. For all they know, the person may have gotten off scot-free, with no note or warning. Perhaps they convinced the admin they weren't in the wrong. Although bans and notes are private information and shouldn't be made public, I believe the person ahelping has a right to know at least whether the person they ahelped was punished or not. It doesn't need to be specific - whether it was a ban, note, or what - but simply knowing that it was actually handled, is very helpful. Otherwise, in cases where you are certain the offending player broke the rules, you have no way of knowing it was resolved.

Currently it seems up to admin discretion. Some admins say "they're banned" straight up - which is pretty nice to hear after someone griefed you enough to get you to ahelp. Some say "it's been handled" with no other information. Still some don't feel compelled to respond at all after handling it from their end.

I do not believe there is precedent here. Rule 6 currently states,

If an admin says something was 'looked into, handled, resolved' etc, regarding an issue, it is unlikely an admin will provide any further information. Admins are under no obligation to reveal IC information.

The first part here applies to the second. By, "unlikely to provide further information," clearly what is meant is IC information. I.e., whether the player was an antag or not, obviously needs to remain secret, so "it was handled" with no extra information is necessary here. But this says nothing about OOC information, in telling the ahelper if something was done or not.

[Sylphet]

Absolutely not. Players do not need and are in no way entitled to the details of admin actions. Current policy is fine.

[Pandarsenic]

Under no circumstances should this become an expectation or requirement. Too much information gets out just from that if it becomes standard.

[sinfulbliss]

Absolutely not. Players do not need and are in no way entitled to the details of admin actions. Current policy is fine.

Why not? Many admins do share this information, or at least gesture that something was done. Why is your view that they shouldn't?
Also, as I already stated, there isn't current policy on this. That's the point of the thread.

Under no circumstances should this become an expectation or requirement. Too much information gets out just from that if it becomes standard.

It doesn't need to be specific - whether it was a ban, note, or what - but simply knowing that it was actually handled, is very helpful.

In what way is saying "they won't be doing this again," or in one case from memory, "they won't be getting away with this," too much information? Likewise, if you grief someone, how is it a bad thing for that person to know you got banned as a result? Like I said, some admins already do share this. It seems others choose not to only because they believe they aren't supposed to.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

Because that OOC information is inherently IC information. Let's say someone griefs you a bunch or kills you FNR. You ahelp it. "It's handled." is everything you need to know. The admin has looked into it, and taken whatever action (or lack thereof) there is. If it becomes standard for an admin to tell you "yeah I gave the guy a note" then when they suddenly get off scott free, you instantly know they're an antag.

It's a form of IC in OOC, in a sense.

[WineAllWine]

This would be extremely unpopular with admins.

[wesoda25]

I think all admins should make an effort to inform the ahelper as to the outcome of an investigation/discussion, but not the specifics of punishment (if any). An admin saying they’ll look into something and then after a while giving a simple “handled” is bad. I think it removes accountability and also just isn’t helpful to the ahelper: by touching base with the ahelper you can help develop their understanding of the rules further, which is something every admin should want. You also may have to defend your interpretation of the rules, which is good.

[sinfulbliss]

Because that OOC information is inherently IC information. Let's say someone griefs you a bunch or kills you FNR. You ahelp it. "It's handled." is everything you need to know. The admin has looked into it, and taken whatever action (or lack thereof) there is. If it becomes standard for an admin to tell you "yeah I gave the guy a note" then when they suddenly get off scott free, you instantly know they're an antag.

It's a form of IC in OOC, in a sense.

These issues are completely separate, this is not what my thread is about.

If the person being ahelped is an antag, admins wouldn’t say “it’s been handled” in the first place, because nothing was handled. There was nothing to look into. The other player was not spoken to. No investigation was done. If the ahelped player was an antag, the admin should just not reply to the ticket, or mark it an IC issue. This is usually the approach taken under my understanding.

If the ahelped player wasn’t an antag, then the admin would begin an investigation, which would involve bwoinking the other player, getting their side of things, maybe following up with you to get clarifications, etc. It’s these bwoinks I’m referring to.

[Sylphet]

Why not? Many admins do share this information, or at least gesture that something was done. Why is your view that they shouldn't?
Also, as I already stated, there isn't current policy on this. That's the point of the thread.

If an admin says something was 'looked into, handled, resolved' etc, regarding an issue, it is unlikely an admin will provide any further information.

This is our current policy. Admins are free to reveal things if they care to, but are not expected or required to. Sometimes, I share this stuff too. It's not like there's no situation where it can happen. As a rule, I personally only reveal if a ban was placed in cases of extreme and clear grief. And I do this because I think it's important for the players to know that it was handled. I am absolutely against it becoming an expectation because the majority of cases are not clear grief. A majority of ahelps are just bad escalation on one side or another. The victim of bad escalation is naturally going to be biased against the person responsible. We have outside observers of a situation handle things for a reason, and I do not want my every ahelp to turn into an argument of how harsh I need to be with people who have zero knowledge of any kind of mitigating factors - note history or lack of it, playtime, ticket conduct, admission of fault, outside round information. If people want that much input, the admin applications subforum exists.

It doesn't need to be specific - whether it was a ban, note, or what - but simply knowing that it was actually handled, is very helpful.

In what way is saying "they won't be doing this again," or in one case from memory, "they won't be getting away with this," too much information? Likewise, if you grief someone, how is it a bad thing for that person to know you got banned as a result? Like I said, some admins already do share this. It seems others choose not to only because they believe they aren't supposed to.

We already say that something was handled. I do have a problem with admins who silently close tickets, a simple it was handled is not much to ask. However - say we create this expectation that an admin must tell you if a ban was placed. Anne Tagonist walks up and shoots you in the face. You are now dead. You ahelp, because - "what the fuck, grief ??". I connect, and look at the traitor panel. Anne Tagonist is a traitor. You are her objective. I have two real options here. I either tell you "I did not place a ban here" which tells you one of two things. I am totally incompetent, or Anne Tagonist is a dumb stinky valid traitor. Alternatively, I tell you nothing except "It was handled appropriately." This preserves the metaknowledge that you can have, neither confirming nor denying that she is a traitor. I have now broken admin conduct because I didn't tell you what I did. It puts me as an admin in a position where I have to tell you exactly what I did or didn't do - I might as well just put some maptext over their head, writing VALID SALAD in bright pink comic sans.

I absolutely have no issue with jannies telling people that someone was banned - and like I said, I do it when appropriate. I have a serious issue with forcing us to do it, this is very poorly thought through in my mind.

[sinfulbliss]

I think all admins should make an effort to inform the ahelper as to the outcome of an investigation/discussion, but not the specifics of punishment (if any). An admin saying they’ll look into something and then after a while giving a simple “handled” is bad. I think it removes accountability and also just isn’t helpful to the ahelper: by touching base with the ahelper you can help develop their understanding of the rules further, which is something every admin should want. You also may have to defend your interpretation of the rules, which is good.

Exactly, this is the only thing I am pushing for. I also remember that tickets with you specifically did this, and it really makes a world of difference to the player who was just wronged by somebody.

We have outside observers of a situation handle things for a reason, and I do not want my every ahelp to turn into an argument of how harsh I need to be with people who have zero knowledge of any kind of mitigating factors

The idea would be after handling it, and informing the ahelper of the outcome, the discussion would be closed. You'd simply end the ticket (maybe give a few seconds for the player to say thanks or something). There'd be no argument. If they whined about the results you could just close the ticket. You'd be under no obligation to continue the discussion after you've ruled on it as an admin.

Anne Tagonist walks up and shoots you in the face. You are now dead. You ahelp, because - "what the fuck, grief ??"

You observe Anne Tagonist after they kill you and notice, oh, they're an antagonist, and then you decide not to ahelp. If they didn't do this and ahelped an antag then just ghost their ticket, that's the best way of withholding the IC info honestly.

Alternatively, I tell you nothing except "It was handled appropriately." This preserves the metaknowledge that you can have, neither confirming nor denying that she is a traitor. I have now broken admin conduct because I didn't tell you what I did. It puts me as an admin in a position where I have to tell you exactly what I did or didn't do - I might as well just put some maptext over their head, writing VALID SALAD in bright pink comic sans.

No matter how you choose to respond, the system can be "gamed." That sort of response sounds pretty artificial, so if they're trying to sneak in metaknowledge they'll assume that any ahelps that don't ask for followups and additional info but are ominously resolved with "The situation was handled appropriately," are antags. That's why the best bet is just to ghost the ahelp or mark it an IC-issue, IMO. They can think you're a bad admin all they want until they see the roundend then feel dumb about it.

I absolutely have no issue with jannies telling people that someone was banned - and like I said, I do it when appropriate. I have a serious issue with forcing us to do it, this is very poorly thought through in my mind.

Maybe the title of the thread is misleading - I wanted it to be short and to-the-point. I'm really only advocating that players who are actually griefed by nonantags, get some semblance of resolution to their ticket that makes them feel better. It sucks to be griefed, hear "handled," see the guy wasn't an antag, and then see them in the next round. "Guess it wasn't really handled after all" you'd think.

Again, I see no issue with the solution of letting players know the outcome of a ticket. if the issue is indirectly leaking metaknowledge, then I'd say antags being ahelped would just be ghosted by the admins, or marked an IC-issue. Preferably the former since the player will assume the admin just didn't have time for the ticket, didn't see it, etc.

[CMDR_Gungnir]

[/quote]

Because that OOC information is inherently IC information. Let's say someone griefs you a bunch or kills you FNR. You ahelp it. "It's handled." is everything you need to know. The admin has looked into it, and taken whatever action (or lack thereof) there is. If it becomes standard for an admin to tell you "yeah I gave the guy a note" then when they suddenly get off scott free, you instantly know they're an antag.

It's a form of IC in OOC, in a sense.

These issues are completely separate, this is not what my thread is about.

If the person being ahelped is an antag, admins wouldn’t say “it’s been handled” in the first place, because nothing was handled. There was nothing to look into. The other player was not spoken to. No investigation was done. If the ahelped player was an antag, the admin should just not reply to the ticket, or mark it an IC issue. This is usually the approach taken under my understanding.

If the ahelped player wasn’t an antag, then the admin would begin an investigation, which would involve bwoinking the other player, getting their side of things, maybe following up with you to get clarifications, etc. It’s these bwoinks I’m referring to.

Sylphet pretty much summed it up perfectly, honestly. But I'm a little bit confused.

I don't know if you actually read what I said? I mentioned that if the ahelped player is an antag, and the admin just doesn't reply ("huh maybe they didn't see it? should I bump them about it in 15 minutes?") or marks it an IC issue, you suddenly know this person is an antag, all the more so if Regular Conduct is "Yeah I talked to the guy, he's got a Note about it, now."

And then...you just kinda said that admins should ignore it. From what you said, it sounded like you consider the two separate issues (IE, you're talking about cases where they specifically AREN'T an antag) but the problem is that they're hand in hand. If the two are forward-facingly treated different (IC Issue/No Response when it's an Antag, "Yeah we noted him" when it's not) you can immediately tell which of the two situations it is based on how the admin responds (or doesn't, as the case may be) to you.

The problem is that the two types of bwoinks/ahelps specifically go hand-in-hand because of the fact that it can ONLY be one or the other.

Alternatively, I tell you nothing except "It was handled appropriately." This preserves the metaknowledge that you can have, neither confirming nor denying that she is a traitor. I have now broken admin conduct because I didn't tell you what I did. It puts me as an admin in a position where I have to tell you exactly what I did or didn't do - I might as well just put some maptext over their head, writing VALID SALAD in bright pink comic sans.

No matter how you choose to respond, the system can be "gamed." That sort of response sounds pretty artificial, so if they're trying to sneak in metaknowledge they'll assume that any ahelps that don't ask for followups and additional info but are ominously resolved with "The situation was handled appropriately," are antags. That's why the best bet is just to ghost the ahelp or mark it an IC-issue, IMO. They can think you're a bad admin all they want until they see the roundend then feel dumb about it.

Not really? A situation can be looked into by them without needing to ask you for further details. Maybe they talked to the guy and they admitted what they did and apologized, or didn't know they did something wrong and acknowledge their mistake. Maybe they could see it from the logs. Hell, maybe sometimes that admin chooses to ask you questions anyway to make it look like they're going deep on it when it's an antag, to throw you all the further off. I'm not sure why you think that responding to everything the same will give out metaknowledge, but responding to things differently suddenly won't.

I absolutely have no issue with jannies telling people that someone was banned - and like I said, I do it when appropriate. I have a serious issue with forcing us to do it, this is very poorly thought through in my mind.

Maybe the title of the thread is misleading - I wanted it to be short and to-the-point. I'm really only advocating that players who are actually griefed by nonantags, get some semblance of resolution to their ticket that makes them feel better. It sucks to be griefed, hear "handled," see the guy wasn't an antag, and then see them in the next round. "Guess it wasn't really handled after all" you'd think.

That suggests that the only possible outcome is they get banned. You get griefed, they're a non-antag, you ahelp it, they get talked to/given a Note, you're naturally gonna see them in the next round.

[WineAllWine]

e have outside observers of a situation handle things for a reason, and I do not want my every ahelp to turn into an argument of how harsh I need to be with people who have zero knowledge of any kind of mitigating factors - note history or lack of it, playtime, ticket conduct, admission of fault, outside round information. If people want that much input, the admin applications subforum exists.

This is my main problem with this suggestion, wronged players will inevitably ask for so-and-so to be noted or banned when that isn't the outcome I think is best. It would result in extremely tedious arguments from people who, by definition, have less experience in admin matters than me. It would make adminning much more stressful.

And admin happiness does matter! For both admins and players.

[Sylphet]

You observe Anne Tagonist after they kill you and notice, oh, they're an antagonist, and then you decide not to ahelp. If they didn't do this and ahelped an antag then just ghost their ticket, that's the best way of withholding the IC info honestly.

...ghosting tickets is even worse feeling as a player. This thread is supposed to be about players feeling heard, like their issue is handled - and then you suggest that we treat them like their concerns aren't worth so much as a short reply ?

I wanted it to be short and to-the-point. I'm really only advocating that players who are actually griefed by nonantags, get some semblance of resolution to their ticket that makes them feel better. It sucks to be griefed, hear "handled," see the guy wasn't an antag, and then see them in the next round. "Guess it wasn't really handled after all" you'd think.

We're back to the issue of players lawyering. Admin actions are not binary, players can be handled through methods other than banned / not banned. There's so many things that can change the outcome of a ticket. A ban might not fit the situation. Maybe the guy is new and gets only a note. Maybe they got a roleban. Maybe even just a conversation about it is sufficient. Who knows, it doesn't matter. It's been handled is what we say because we want you to feel heard, but you are not entitled to the details of it just because it makes you unhappy.

Look - I get what it's like to be griefed. All jannies do. We have an admin on the team right now who I've made a complaint against for taking literally no action against a griefer, on my own ticket. It honestly still pisses me off a bit how incompetently it was handled, over a year later. We're not robotic banbots, we're players like you who volunteer our time to make something that we love better. We do treat grief tickets with respect, and genuinely try to handle them as best as we can, whether we feel like we can tell you the outcome or not. This is genuinely not the solution. Have a little bit of faith in us ?

[NecromancerAnne]

You got the 'its handled' line because
A) admins don't necessarily ban on first offense, so saying if it was or not is irrelevant and notes aren't anything you, the ahelper, should care about because it is only for informing future interactions with the player.
B) it might have had good reasoning/might have been an antagonists actions and you aren't getting ic information about why.
C) being told further information might influence your ic actions.

If you feel like you should know if a ban/note occurred, why? Will you feel indignant if it doesn't get that result? That practically reduces the ahelp to a ban request and less of a request to admins to investigate a situation you believe deserves their attention. You're not an admin, and approaching the process in this way is a good sign you shouldn't be one. A situation can have a lot of nuance, and you shouldn't necessarily be privvy to all of that information.

[Timberpoes]

Telling players the outcome isn't forbidden. It is, however, discretionary. I tend to use that discretion for more often than other admins when I feel it will lead to a more satisfying ticket conclusion for a player that has been impacted by rule breaking.

I don't say when I've noted someone, as noting people tends to be fairly minor and most players don't care beyond "I've investigated/had a word with X and it has been handled". It feels petty to reveal such minor, pointless and procedural stuff like that.

For incidents where I have to step in and fix an issue (revival, respawning, returning items, etc.) that end with a ban, I am far more likely give a little bit more closure through not-so-subtle phrasing.

Many players have had me tell them people have "taken a long vacation" or that "the server should feel a bit better the next week or so". Some lucky players even got the honour of being told that "someone will not be a problem at all anymore" or to "check our public ban list in an hour".

Sometimes I even announce it to the entire server when it's a particularly important character to round progression. Central informing the crew that the Captain "has had their loyalty implant detect subversive thoughts and I have activated the emergency failsafe as a precaution, causing their brain to be unceremoniously scrambled" and telling them to pick a new Captain or turning it into an event where players compete to become the new Captain.

I believe that little bit of catharsis that players get from knowing a major griefer who just merc'd them FNR has been excluded from the server can often erase all the negativity that comes from an incident and show that the admin had some genuine empathy for them.

[Timberpoes]

Also doublepost to mention that my views are outliers and most admins will shit a brick if you dare even suggest breaching the sacred veil of admin <-> banned shitter privacy.

[RaveRadbury]

We keep that stuff private to reduce community drama.

[Timberpoes]

I feel good closure is important.

Sharing processes, ways of working, decisions and how those decisions are made is a process that seeks to teach and inform players. A lot of community drama stems from poor communication of incident handling, players not understanding what admins do or how admins work. I think sharing that information is a greater overall good than it is localised evil.

Take some of the headmin platforms. A number of the player-policy areas have some wild misconceptions about how the admin team works and what is fundamentally possible.

Part of my time as an admin is spent lifting the veil of what admins do and how they work. I try to share that information with players. I believe that there are more player community drama moments from not being told things or being told just enough things that you're kinda being misled than there are being told things >>>within reason<<<.

[sinfulbliss]

Many of these replies are perfectly reasonable stances to have as admins. They're also the reason why players don't ahelp. I and many others only really ahelp if it's the last available option, because it's much more cathartic to beat a griefer over the head with a toolbox and resolve the situation IC than to complain to an admin and hear "handled."

I mentioned that if the ahelped player is an antag, and the admin just doesn't reply ("huh maybe they didn't see it? should I bump them about it in 15 minutes?") or marks it an IC issue, you suddenly know this person is an antag, all the more so if Regular Conduct is "Yeah I talked to the guy, he's got a Note about it, now."

No, because admins mark things for IC issues/don't reply to tickets fairly often for reasons unrelated to antag status anyway. It would blend in fine.

...ghosting tickets is even worse feeling as a player. This thread is supposed to be about players feeling heard, like their issue is handled - and then you suggest that we treat them like their concerns aren't worth so much as a short reply ?

True, but this would only be necessary in cases where the ahelp is against an antagonist. I'm not sure the numbers on that, but if it's less than 50%, the benefit would outweigh the harm.

You're not an admin, and approaching the process in this way is a good sign you shouldn't be one.

Learn to engage in a serious discussion without being a cunt, thanks. A good way to do this is to imagine yourself speaking in-person what you've typed - if it makes you sound like a prick, you're probably being one.

Telling players the outcome isn't forbidden. It is, however, discretionary. I tend to use that discretion for more often than other admins when I feel it will lead to a more satisfying ticket conclusion for a player that has been impacted by rule breaking.
[...]
I believe that little bit of catharsis that players get from knowing a major griefer who just merc'd them FNR has been excluded from the server can often erase all the negativity that comes from an incident and show that the admin had some genuine empathy for them.
[...]
Sharing processes, ways of working, decisions and how those decisions are made is a process that seeks to teach and inform players. A lot of community drama stems from poor communication of incident handling, players not understanding what admins do or how admins work. I think sharing that information is a greater overall good than it is localised evil.

Totally agree with this stance (along with wesoda's) and it would be really cool if more admins took this approach to it.

[Not-Dorsidarf]

"Handled" is plenty of closure, honestly. Admins shouldnt be disallowed from sharing more, but I dont think anyone should expect that, especially for in-round ahelps

[NecromancerAnne]

Learn to engage in a serious discussion without being a cunt, thanks. A good way to do this is to imagine yourself speaking in-person what you've typed - if it makes you sound like a prick, you're probably being one.

That was not literally you, sinful, that was the strawman I was propping up for my argument.

We keep that stuff private to reduce community drama.

Honestly this would have been my answer but I'm sure someone would probably claim it's a 'manuel only' thing. I think letting the player themself actually disclose their note history is usually a better move.

[SkeletalElite]

I feel like leaving it at saying "appropriate action was taken" or "handled" is enough.

[Farquaar]

Just telling the ahelper that they dealt with the offending player should be fine imo. Saves a lot of headaches, and if the admin actually and obviously didn't deal with the problem (i.e. offending player continues griefing and admin tells ahelper that the situation is fine) then they can open an admin complaint.

Admins are meant to keep the game fun, not to act as arbiters of justice.

[dragomagol]

We don't have any interest in making this a requirement, for the reasons given in this thread.

Headmin Votes:
Dragomagol: Agree
NamelessFairy: Agree
RaveRadbury: Agree